The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…

M. I. Ad hominem, the Church of England hath, as I said, judged the like valid in the Reformed Churches, by holding Communion with them. I cited a great number of Bishops and Doctors in my Christian Concord.

L. But they say that necessity differeth their case from ours here; And even Doctor Sherlock tells you that if God make necessity; necessity will make Ministers: But ours Schismatically pulled down the Bishops and now disown the very Order.

L. But they say that necessity differeth their case from ours here; And even Doctour Sherlock tells you that if God make necessity; necessity will make Ministers: But ours Schismatically pull'd down the Bishops and now disown the very Order.

M. There is a satisfactory concession in these words, but the accusations are made up of falsehood and deceit. 1. Archbishop Usher and others that thought the Ejectors of Episcopacy were guilty of Schism, yet maintained that their Ordination was valid: He told me how he pleaded it to the King. 2. Do they think that Salmasius, Blundel and all others that have written more against our Prelacy than the English, were deprived of it against their wills by necessity. 3. What necessity can they pretend to the Hollanders, Helvetians, Geneva, Emden, Bremen, the Palatinate, and Scotland heretofore? might they not have had Prelates when they would. ⟨p. 27⟩4. Was not the necessity far more notorious to those that I now plead for. They lived in a Land where Episcopacy was cast out, and kept out by a potent Army. I think there were but four or five Bishops alive when it was restored. 5. It is false that they cast out the Bishops. Those Ministers that joined with the Parliament to cast them out, were Ordained by Bishops, and therefore are none of the men that we are speaking of: These that were Ordained by Presbyters were then young men at School, or in the Universities. And what are other mens actions to them?